It just seems like the fanboys hate the scene of Superman killing Zod, and are ignoring every.single.piece.of.reason. of why that happened, just so that their point can go through.

Seriously I give up.

I make so much effort to explain how I feel, honeslty and in detail. I've absolutely acknowledged all the reasons behind what happened, and even that I can see the good parts of it and how I could have even been on board if handled slightly differently. I'm respectful and make it clear at every possible point that's it's all my opinion.

And this is the kind of response I get every step of the way.

People just wanna dismiss me.

Well go ahead, I'm done.

__________________

Just accept that this is the direction they have taken.

Then, you can either decide this version isn't for you and stop watching. OR you can decide to enjoy it for what it is - an elseworlds tale.

'In Elseworlds, super-heroes are taken from their usual settings and put into strange times and places - some that have existed, and others that can't, couldn't or shouldn't exist. The result is stories that make characters who are as familiar as yesterday seem as fresh as tomorrow.'

As far as I’m concerned, there’s little in MOS that needs to be rationalized or apologized for in a follow-up movie. Quite explicitly, Zod’s terraforming scheme would have killed all life on planet Earth. Supes prevented that; and I require no further explanations or “closure” on the matter. Now, this isn’t to say that Snyder/Goyer won’t address the backlash and complaints (coming from some quarters) in the sequel. But if such an attempt at “retroactive rehabilitation” happens, I’ll criticize it as entirely unnecessary.

People keep saying they should have at least had Superman try and save people in the Zod battle.

Urgh, this is annoying. The only part of the film where there are people present is when they have a quick fist fight on the street. All the building Zod smashed Supes into CLEARLY had nobody in them.

I just think it's sad people hang on this topic yet don't hold the cartoons or comics accountable. Hell, I just re-read two Superman comics where the ending has a big brawl in the city with smashed buildings and all. One of them is the popular Superman/Batman Public Enemies where he fights Lex. They smash up some real estate pretty good and not once does Superman stop and assess the damage.

The other comic is considered by many to be one of, if not the best Superman story ever. All-Star Superman. Again, he fights Lex and they tear ***** up real nice. I didn't see Superman say "Hold up Lex, lemme save some random peeps right quick, you know for the readers piece of mind."

Hell, in the last episode of Justice League Unlimited Supes puts the udder smackdown on Darkseid and punches him through numerous buildings. Not once did he see if anybody was hurt.

The double standard people are applying to this film are soooo weak. What really gets me is the outcry for years that fans and casual movie goers alike wanted to see the character TRULY represented on screen. They get it. They FINALLY get it and what do they do? They ***** about it and say it's not Superman....

As far as what he did at the end, for me, Superman's reaction right after doing it....and his refusal to do so up until he felt he needed to...for me, those were enough for me to accept what he had done. It didn't ruin the movie for me, and I liked the theme that it basically delivered.

But, I feel like, ideally, there could have been a different approach to the message that was being conveyed. But, that's just ideological on my part, and would have meant reworking the film and not just changing that one moment.

What I'm saying is that, and just hear me out here, if you look at Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel, they're both stories that have a strong message about how difficult, and morally torturing, it can be to face against an enemy that is relentless, and an extremist who WILL kill millions. It's relevant today, because we live in a world where an idealistic view on war, on extremism, on terrorism is basically laughed at. You're either called a coward, or an idiot if you are of the opinion that we shouldn't kill or fight back with intense force. Someone like Batman, who refuses to kill the Joker...would, by today's standard, probably be considered a coward.

Just think about the joy so many people, myself included, felt when Bin Laden had been killed. There was celebration, and genuine happiness over it. We could say what we want about why, or breakdown all of the emotional aspects of the what and why's. But, here where I live, in the U.S., that moment is essentially all you need to know about how we view the battle between good and evil in an ideological and practical way.

So, I think that Superman, in Man of Steel, is essentially an acceptance of that view. It's embracing what the modern state of how we view the battle between good and evil. That, sometimes you MUST kill to do good.

I brought up Star Trek Into Darkness, because thematically they're pretty much handling the same kind of subject. How do you deal with someone who does such horrible things? Your gut instinct is to seek vengeance, obviously. You want to go, get them, and kill them for the crimes they've committed. But, whereas Man of Steel is accepting the modern view on this, Star Trek (by the end) goes up against it and says it's wrong. It's morally wrong, and that we need to be better than that. We must be better. Now, yeah, it's an idealistic point to make. It's even controversial to, basically say, that a horrible mass murdering terrorist should not be killed for his crimes. That he should be tried, under the court of law, and imprisoned for his crimes...but not killed on a black ops assassination mission.

In today's world, that's an very unpopular message to convey.

So, while I accept and still enjoyed Man of Steel and the message they're conveying. I understand why people feel so strongly about what he did. I appreciate the notion that film could have been on the idealistic side on the argument, like Trek was.

As far as what he did at the end, for me, Superman's reaction right after doing it....and his refusal to do so up until he felt he needed to...for me, those were enough for me to accept what he had done. It didn't ruin the movie for me, and I liked the theme that it basically delivered.

But, I feel like, ideally, there could have been a different approach to the message that was being conveyed. But, that's just ideological on my part, and would have meant reworking the film and not just changing that one moment.

What I'm saying is that, and just hear me out here, if you look at Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel, they're both stories that have a strong message about how difficult, and morally torturing, it can be to face against an enemy that is relentless, and an extremist who WILL kill millions. It's relevant today, because we live in a world where an idealistic view on war, on extremism, on terrorism is basically laughed at. You're either called a coward, or an idiot if you are of the opinion that we shouldn't kill or fight back with intense force. Someone like Batman, who refuses to kill the Joker...would, by today's standard, probably be considered a coward.

Just think about the joy so many people, myself included, felt when Bin Laden had been killed. There was celebration, and genuine happiness over it. We could say what we want about why, or breakdown all of the emotional aspects of the what and why's. But, here where I live, in the U.S., that moment is essentially all you need to know about how we view the battle between good and evil in an ideological and practical way.

So, I think that Superman, in Man of Steel, is essentially an acceptance of that view. It's embracing what the modern state of how we view the battle between good and evil. That, sometimes you MUST kill to do good.

I brought up Star Trek Into Darkness, because thematically they're pretty much handling the same kind of subject. How do you deal with someone who does such horrible things? Your gut instinct is to seek vengeance, obviously. You want to go, get them, and kill them for the crimes they've committed. But, whereas Man of Steel is accepting the modern view on this, Star Trek (by the end) goes up against it and says it's wrong. It's morally wrong, and that we need to be better than that. We must be better. Now, yeah, it's an idealistic point to make. It's even controversial to, basically say, that a horrible mass murdering terrorist should not be killed for his crimes. That he should be tried, under the court of law, and imprisoned for his crimes...but not killed on a black ops assassination mission.

In today's world, that's an very unpopular message to convey.

So, while I accept and still enjoyed Man of Steel and the message they're conveying. I understand why people feel so strongly about what he did. I appreciate the notion that film could have been on the idealistic side on the argument, like Trek was.

That's an very interesting POV. While I can agree that MOS seems to accept the modern view, seeing as it was only thing he could do, I think still think Superman's reaction at the same time rejects it. From that moment I take it that he will never do it again and it give me hope.

I've only see Star Trek once so forgive me if I'm remembering it incorrectly. The little speech at the end does it's part in giving a moral POV, but to me it seemed like such an afterthought that it rang hollow. I found Superman's reaction to be far more effective than Kirk's ramble.

The first third of MOS was great, the second third was good but the last third was pretty bad IMO.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlesConceptz

Im done. Im leaving this website. I promise i will not be spiderman or attempt to be. I have a ral careerr to fulfill. Please don NOT tell anyone about this. I would appreciate if you all kept this a secret.

2017 Spidey reboot ideasThe following post is my opinion so take it as you will.

People keep saying they should have at least had Superman try and save people in the Zod battle.

Urgh, this is annoying. The only part of the film where there are people present is when they have a quick fist fight on the street. All the building Zod smashed Supes into CLEARLY had nobody in them.

I just think it's sad people hang on this topic yet don't hold the cartoons or comics accountable. Hell, I just re-read two Superman comics where the ending has a big brawl in the city with smashed buildings and all. One of them is the popular Superman/Batman Public Enemies where he fights Lex. They smash up some real estate pretty good and not once does Superman stop and assess the damage.

The other comic is considered by many to be one of, if not the best Superman story ever. All-Star Superman. Again, he fights Lex and they tear ***** up real nice. I didn't see Superman say "Hold up Lex, lemme save some random peeps right quick, you know for the readers piece of mind."

Hell, in the last episode of Justice League Unlimited Supes puts the udder smackdown on Darkseid and punches him through numerous buildings. Not once did he see if anybody was hurt.

The double standard people are applying to this film are soooo weak. What really gets me is the outcry for years that fans and casual movie goers alike wanted to see the character TRULY represented on screen. They get it. They FINALLY get it and what do they do? They ***** about it and say it's not Superman....

I just don't get how it has become such a thing with people. Pick up any random Superman comic of the last 20 years and you will see collateral damage caused by his fighting a bad guy. It's what makes cool looking action. Cartoons, comics AND films alike. "This, he never stopped to save anybody!" outcry is invalid as there was nobody SHOWN to be in direct danger! And people seem to forget Superman stopping Faora from destroying a jet with people in it, saving a soldier from falling out of a helicopter and saving the Col. guy from being murdered by Faora in the Smallville fight.

This backlash would be perfectly reasonable if people were present in the buildings they were trowing each other into (something that happens in the comics! GASP!) thus causing more damage. The only people in harms way during the last fight were the family Zod was going to kill and Superman totally saved them. Saved them real good too

It's like people have a haze over their eyes during this film and don't see what's in front of them and hold Man of Steel up to standards they have never holded the comics, the cartoons and the animated films up to.

Thank you, Gremlinzilla. Thank you, thank you thank you. And one other very important thing people keep forgetting about this version of Supes is that he is young and inexperienced. When he's battling Zod and the Kryptonians, he has never been thrust into a situation like this before in his life. All he can do is react and try his best to stop this madman from destroying everything. He's not strategizing in his mind how many people he can save from falling buildings in between punches, he just knows this guy is about to destroy the planet and he's the only one who can stop him. There was no time to think, no time to strategize, this young hero was fighting a foe who was obviously much more powerful than he was and was completely unhinged; he followed his instincts and did what he had to stop him.

The problem I think people have with Superman killing Zod is not necessarily the fact that he kills him but more the fact that it doesn't feel earned by the film. We did not get into the character's head enough throughout the course of the film. We don't know what his stance on life is, what morals he has, what he believes in, etc. The film thinks that it did just as good of a job of getting into the protagonist's head as Batman Begins and Iron Man did, and therefore thinks it can pull something like that off and have it be accepted. However, that is not the case.

And that is really what a lot of MOS boils down to: Great ideas not executed properly. There are so many things in this film that are poorly received not because of the ideas behind them but because of the poor execution. A lot of the times, people even get the wrong message out of it due to how poor the execution is in certain places. Case and point: Jonathan Kent. Many people assume Pa Kent never wanted Clark to use his powers to help people when in Snyder's mind, what Pa Kent actually believed is that Clark wasn't ready to reveal himself yet and had to be ready for that when the time was right. Otherwise, he would never have a chance of being accepted by our society.

Basically, the execution makes the film feels like this:
BOOM! Cool Krypton stuff and giant birds!
BAM! Cool flashbacks with brief touches on the symbol of hope and humanity!
WOW! Aliens are attacking the planet now!
HOLY ****! Superman and the army beat the **** out of everyone then Supes snaps the ****er's neck like a boss!
And now happy ending with people smiling!

...when Snyder's real intentions was to do something more like this:
Jor-El sends his only son from a hopeless world beyond saving to a hopeless world that still has a fighting chance.
Clark grows up not being sure of what his purpose in life is. Has the following beliefs, the following stances on things such as murder, the following internal conflicts, etc.
The lack of hope and of freedom that has lead to Krypton's eventual demise has now come to Earth. Clark does not know what to do and has to make a decision - a decision based on all the morals/beliefs/lessons we've seen him have + learn throughout the course of the film till now.
Clark decides he can't let Zod turn Earth into Krypton - not just into a physical Krypton but into the same hopeless/freedom-less world that Krypton has become.
Clark commits murder. Based on everything we've seen of his beliefs throughout the film, he reacts in the following way. However, his moral internal struggles have finally come to an end and knows what is right now. Clark looks at the sun, says "never again" to himself, and finally knows what type of person/hero he needs to be.
Clark joins the DP. His origin is complete and has finally become the Superman.

People keep saying they should have at least had Superman try and save people in the Zod battle.

Urgh, this is annoying. The only part of the film where there are people present is when they have a quick fist fight on the street. All the building Zod smashed Supes into CLEARLY had nobody in them.

I just think it's sad people hang on this topic yet don't hold the cartoons or comics accountable. Hell, I just re-read two Superman comics where the ending has a big brawl in the city with smashed buildings and all. One of them is the popular Superman/Batman Public Enemies where he fights Lex. They smash up some real estate pretty good and not once does Superman stop and assess the damage.

The other comic is considered by many to be one of, if not the best Superman story ever. All-Star Superman. Again, he fights Lex and they tear ***** up real nice. I didn't see Superman say "Hold up Lex, lemme save some random peeps right quick, you know for the readers piece of mind."

Hell, in the last episode of Justice League Unlimited Supes puts the udder smackdown on Darkseid and punches him through numerous buildings. Not once did he see if anybody was hurt.

The double standard people are applying to this film are soooo weak. What really gets me is the outcry for years that fans and casual movie goers alike wanted to see the character TRULY represented on screen. They get it. They FINALLY get it and what do they do? They ***** about it and say it's not Superman....

I just can't help but think "It's a comic book movie....calm down."

Actually there were people in those buildings. Pause the blu-ray.

But I don't have a problem with it. Sometimes when badguys do bad things, there are casualties. All the best CBMs / action movies have this.

The problem I think people have with Superman killing Zod is not necessarily the fact that he kills him but more the fact that it doesn't feel earned by the film. We did not get into the character's head enough throughout the course of the film. We don't know what his stance on life is, what morals he has, what he believes in, etc. The film thinks that it did just as good of a job of getting into the protagonist's head as Batman Begins and Iron Man did, and therefore thinks it can pull something like that off and have it be accepted. However, that is not the case.

And that is really what a lot of MOS boils down to: Great ideas not executed properly. There are so many things in this film that are poorly received not because of the ideas behind them but because of the poor execution. A lot of the times, people even get the wrong message out of it due to how poor the execution is in certain places. Case and point: Jonathan Kent. Many people assume Pa Kent never wanted Clark to use his powers to help people when in Snyder's mind, what Pa Kent actually believed is that Clark wasn't ready to reveal himself yet and had to be ready for that when the time was right. Otherwise, he would never have a chance of being accepted by our society.

Basically, the execution makes the film feels like this:
BOOM! Cool Krypton stuff and giant birds!
BAM! Cool flashbacks with brief touches on the symbol of hope and humanity!
WOW! Aliens are attacking the planet now!
HOLY ****! Superman and the army beat the **** out of everyone then Supes snaps the ****er's neck like a boss!
And now happy ending with people smiling!

...when Snyder's real intentions was to do something more like this:
Jor-El sends his only son from a hopeless world beyond saving to a hopeless world that still has a fighting chance.
Clark grows up not being sure of what his purpose in life is. Has the following beliefs, the following stances on things such as murder, the following internal conflicts, etc.
The lack of hope and of freedom that has lead to Krypton's eventual demise has now come to Earth. Clark does not know what to do and has to make a decision - a decision based on all the morals/beliefs/lessons we've seen him have + learn throughout the course of the film till now.
Clark decides he can't let Zod turn Earth into Krypton - not just into a physical Krypton but into the same hopeless/freedom-less world that Krypton has become.
Clark commits murder. Based on everything we've seen of his beliefs throughout the film, he reacts in the following way. However, his moral internal struggles have finally come to an end and knows what is right now. Clark looks at the sun, says "never again" to himself, and finally knows what type of person/hero he needs to be.
Clark joins the DP. His origin is complete and has finally become the Superman.

This is the thing, exactly.

I had no problem at all with Superman killing. But I had many comics in my hard drive that worked as a background for this.

But I don't have a problem with it. Sometimes when badguys do bad things, there are casualties. All the best CBMs / action movies have this.

There was exactly one building that looks like it may have people in it. The scene moves so fast you can barely even tell with pausing. I think maybe you see a couple people working at desks. Superman gets punched into about 5 buildings so hard he's stunned when he finally stops moving and then Zod takes him all the way to space. People also seem to not grasp that Superman was losing the fight until the very end. He lost ALL the fights in the film. They didn't let up on beating his ass, lol.

And yes, you are right. I don't know why some people want clean danger. Because if superheroes only fought in fields and barren landscapes that would be real fun....

This argument about Superman being inexperienced shouldn't even be needed. Nobody needs to defend this film from people who hold it up to some gold standards they don't hold their coveted comics up to.

People have an idea of what Superman should be rather than what he is.

Most people have an idealized version of superman in there heads. It's like the way people talk about Superman you would think he was a 100% Pacifist and an and the perfect Saint that does no wrong. When he's just a good decent every man that oppose to unnecessary violence. The funny thing is Superman is prone to vices like everyone else. He's not perfect but he's tries to be.

__________________

Quote:

What is the most indestructable thing in the avengers? Ironman's suit, Captain America's Shield, or Thor's Hammer?﻿ The correct answer is Hulk's Pants

Most people have an idealized version of superman in there heads. It's like the way people talk about Superman you would think he was a 100% Pacifist and an and the perfect Saint that does no wrong. When he's just a good decent every man that oppose to unnecessary violence. Superman is prone to vices like everyone else.

LOOK! He's punching her into a building and he didn't stop to see who was in it! ALL SUPERMAN COMICS SUCK!

LOOK! He's punching her into a building and he didn't stop to see who was in it! ALL SUPERMAN COMICS SUCK!

That's not even the worst of it. People only know the TV/Movieverse version of Superman and he's is just an idealized version of Sliver age Superman. Those people like to pretend they know Superman but they don't know anything about him out side of the movies Superman. Superman is an extremely violent Might for Right type of charater who when fighting you would stop just shy of killing you because he don't believe him self to be Judge Jury and Exicutoioner except in very rare circumstances.He killed Zod and Doomsday that's not counting all the people he killed before the comic code was instated.

__________________

Quote:

What is the most indestructable thing in the avengers? Ironman's suit, Captain America's Shield, or Thor's Hammer?﻿ The correct answer is Hulk's Pants

The problem I think people have with Superman killing Zod is not necessarily the fact that he kills him but more the fact that it doesn't feel earned by the film. We did not get into the character's head enough throughout the course of the film. We don't know what his stance on life is, what morals he has, what he believes in, etc. The film thinks that it did just as good of a job of getting into the protagonist's head as Batman Begins and Iron Man did, and therefore thinks it can pull something like that off and have it be accepted. However, that is not the case.

And that is really what a lot of MOS boils down to: Great ideas not executed properly. There are so many things in this film that are poorly received not because of the ideas behind them but because of the poor execution. A lot of the times, people even get the wrong message out of it due to how poor the execution is in certain places. Case and point: Jonathan Kent. Many people assume Pa Kent never wanted Clark to use his powers to help people when in Snyder's mind, what Pa Kent actually believed is that Clark wasn't ready to reveal himself yet and had to be ready for that when the time was right. Otherwise, he would never have a chance of being accepted by our society.

Basically, the execution makes the film feels like this:
BOOM! Cool Krypton stuff and giant birds!
BAM! Cool flashbacks with brief touches on the symbol of hope and humanity!
WOW! Aliens are attacking the planet now!
HOLY ****! Superman and the army beat the **** out of everyone then Supes snaps the ****er's neck like a boss!
And now happy ending with people smiling!

...when Snyder's real intentions was to do something more like this:
Jor-El sends his only son from a hopeless world beyond saving to a hopeless world that still has a fighting chance.
Clark grows up not being sure of what his purpose in life is. Has the following beliefs, the following stances on things such as murder, the following internal conflicts, etc.
The lack of hope and of freedom that has lead to Krypton's eventual demise has now come to Earth. Clark does not know what to do and has to make a decision - a decision based on all the morals/beliefs/lessons we've seen him have + learn throughout the course of the film till now.
Clark decides he can't let Zod turn Earth into Krypton - not just into a physical Krypton but into the same hopeless/freedom-less world that Krypton has become.
Clark commits murder. Based on everything we've seen of his beliefs throughout the film, he reacts in the following way. However, his moral internal struggles have finally come to an end and knows what is right now. Clark looks at the sun, says "never again" to himself, and finally knows what type of person/hero he needs to be.
Clark joins the DP. His origin is complete and has finally become the Superman.

How do you get into Superman's head like that in a movie with a complicated origin.

Why cant we use the killing as a gateway to his thought process on life and the like. Why cant we use the mistakes he's made as a way to form his ideals and values.

I rather hear from someone who knows the effects of killing and not being careful than one who just says its not the right thing to do.

Batman and Iron Man was very step 1,2,3. Why couldnt we go the other route.

And lets be clear. Many superheroes even one with powers are self made. Superman is not self made so there is no journey to becoming Superman. There never really was that in the movies. Smallville comes close but that plays off the Donnerverse.

In Man of Steel we get to go deep inside his head. I thought it would have been harsh if Kal's first action in his suit was kill a kryptonian.

I think people soooooooo upset that he wasnt a the victorious superhero in this film. He didnt have his victorious pose.

In the Donnerverse, Christopher Reeve entered as a high class fully formed hero. The posing, the charm, the confidence. Day 1 he was a grade A superhero and we never saw him grow into that.

I dont know. I appreciate what Snyder did. He made Lois meet the real Clark first before Superman and DP Clark. He made Zod more complex and sincere. He made Superman a simple farmboy with power face to fight an alien invasion.

How would a farmboy with superpowers would handle an alien invasion? Probably balls to the walls.

If Clark was raised by an affluent family, went to the top schools in the country with parents who had great ideas of the philosophy and wax poetic on the human condition then you would get the Superman that the opponents of Man of Steel wanted.

In STM, in the fortress, Clark was educated by a scientist, part of an affluent family, from a superior race.

That's not even the worst of it. People only know the TV/Movieverse version of Superman and he's is just an idealized version of Sliver age Superman. Those people like to pretend they know Superman but they don't know anything about him out side of the movies Superman. Superman is an extremely violent Might for Right type of charater who when fighting you would stop just shy of killing you because he don't believe him self to be Judge Jury and Exicutoioner except in very rare circumstances.He killed Zod and Doomsday that's not counting all the people he killed before the comic code was instated.

We could fill this thread with hundreds and hundreds of panels like this. It would almost be worth it just to prove how absolutely wrong people are about the destruction in MOS. It's not even an opinion. It's simple fact. But they would still deny it and only point to their own biased view of the character as the "right" Superman.
There is nothing wrong preferring your own iteration but that doesn't invalidate others. Superman hasn't been the boy-scout like in the Donnerverse for over 30 years. Comics or otherwise.

How can you watch a movie that ends with a little kid stands proud with red flapping cape....when you have just witnessed murder and mayhem twice as significant as Sept 11 succeed? No reflection from Clark, Lois..anybody after that....think of what life would be like in a city like that. Snyder doesn't get it. Goyer should be ashamed of himself.

How can you watch a movie that ends with a little kid stands proud with red flapping cape....when you have just witnessed murder and mayhem twice as significant as Sept 11 succeed? No reflection from Clark, Lois..anybody after that....think of what life would be like in a city like that. Snyder doesn't get it. Goyer should be ashamed of himself.

Dude you missed the point of all the previous posts, and you haven't done the Maths. Yes, 5000 people died, but 6,999,995,000 people LIVED !!!!

Yes there was murder and mayhem, at the hands of the Kryptonian invaders who were casually redesigning Earth's atmosphere to make the human race
EXTINCT ! In fact, your use of the word "succeed " seems incorrect, as clearly the Kryptonians plan failed, with the human race being mostly intact at the end of the film.

As for the one-on-one with Zod.
Zod's original plan was to wipe out the human race, and he was incredibly casual about it. What was his Plan B, when plan A failed ?
Kill as many humans as possible until killed himself.

You must have hated Star Wars, because the death star had a crew of thousands, (probably a lot of whom were non-combatants, like janitors, mechanics, and support staff), BOOM ! all gone, and Luke Skywalker's a hero.
Did you hang your head in horror at the senseless loss of life ? Did you
decry George Lucas' barbarity ?

If you don't like mayhem and murder, you might be reading the wrong genre, as comic books often have a lot of both -sometimes even at the hands of the hero.

Here's a link to a forum you might enjoy more if the above material offends your sensibilities

No murder or mayhem there, just the dastardly machinations of Mr Bingley !

That little kid standing proud, was probably one of the best moments in the film - that he was always going to do something that made a difference (and ended up making a difference to over 6.9 billion people).

MOS isn't a perfect film, (I loved it, but apparently many didn't) anyway, there are lots of reasons to attack it, but the body count is not one that's logically defensible.